all right we'll call to order the
October 19th meeting planning and zoning
board first order of business is
adopting our agenda or amending it
anyone have any changes to the agenda if
not I'll look for a motion to adopt move
their way about the agenda second any
discussion on favor I'd say I all right
thank you our genders adopted the second
order of business for us is the
nomination of the vice chair for this
coming term before I do that I want to
say hello and welcome to our two new
members and identify then we have dan
mcpharlin to my right Sally Hansen is
not here but she's also one of our our
newer members with two new members on
the board this year so with that in mind
I will entertain a motion if anyone has
a recommendation or a nomination for our
vice chair well mon is not here so i say
mom no serious yeah I would be very
pleased to nominate our fellow board
member Mona here it's best for vice
chair I second that in a second I should
point out that while Mona is not here
she is eligible to be nominated for vice
chairs there any discussion on that then
would those of you in favor of that of
naming Mona our vice chair please say
aye any opposed thank you and
congratulations Mona wherever you are
some island somewhere lucky girl you are
now the vice chair our next item is the
approval of our minutes we have two sets
of minutes coming up by one for the
fifteenth of September work session and
one for the 21st to September our
regular meeting does anyone have any
changes amendments edits to either of
those sets of minutes I think we have to
take these separately is that correct we
can do them both together so if someone
wants to move to approve both sets at
one time we can do so so move
give the motion second any discussion on
the minutes all those in favor of
adopting both sets of minutes and
improving them say I please thank you we
are moving right along tonight we have
no public hearings we do have a case
without a public hearing so rather than
go through the instructions for how
public hearing work I'll just mention
that we will introduce this land
development ordinance text amendment and
then we will discuss it ask questions
and and we will take an action after
that good evening miss bear good evening
tonight before you is consideration of
to land development ordinance amendments
these include item a relates to
connectivity and item C relates to low
density residential development
standards these items were discussed at
your work session on sep tember 15th
they went to a town council public
hearing and August and following a
recommendation tonight they will move
forward to town council for a decision
in November I'll go through each of
these briefly and then staff will be
available for questions the first item
related to connectivity would provide
greater flexibility for considering
connections between streets and new
developments and existing neighborhoods
that are adjacent and provides the
option for some decisions to be made at
the time of the rezoning through
rezoning through zoning conditions as
opposed to buy the Town Council
typically through a quasi judicial
hearing at the time of a site plan or
subdivision approval would like to point
out this issue has been discussed it two
public hearings before town council
there's quite a history that goes back
to April of 2014 where Town Council
directed staff to look at this issue
after having a lot of comments from
neighbors as new developments were
coming in and making those decisions
with Street
connections so following this being
brought to staffs attention formally by
council in april of 2014 was discussed
at a work session a council work session
on december 9 2014 that was followed up
with the public hearing in march of this
year at that time with the public
hearing there were still some concerns
from town council so that was sent back
to another council work session which
took place in july and then following
the july work session there was a second
public hearing again that was in august
of this year and that version that was
presented at the august public hearing
is what's before you tonight and that
was also what was discussed by the board
members that were seated as of semoran
September 15th so that just gives a
little bit of history of that project or
this request it does have quite a
lengthy history as that has evolved over
time currently connections to adjacent
neighborhoods are generally required for
all developments and they're addressed
at the time of the site or subdivision
plan approval in certain cases the
Planning Director can waive requirements
for connectivity of streets but that's
limited to the reasons being topographic
considerations such if you have a stream
buffer or stream or a significant
elevation change at the property line
that makes a connection not feasible and
then other waivers can be granted by
town council but again that is not at
the time of the rezoning but at the time
of the subdivision or site plan approval
the one reason that this is not
addressed at the rezoning stage is
because you can't have zoning conditions
that are less restrictive than what the
ordinance requires and currently the
ordinance does not really
very very much leeway for making
exceptions so that it needs to go you
know go forward to the the town council
through quasi judicial process which is
what's required in order for Town
Council to make decisions or exceptions
at a site plan stage the amendment is
proposed would classify existing
neighborhoods into one of three tears
those tears are based on when the
development plan for the neighborhood
was approved whether or not there are
street studs existing in that
neighborhood and whether or not there
are public safety concerns that are
related to access between the two
development the reason I've had a couple
of questions related to the date of
january fourteenth 1999 the reason for
that particular date is that's when the
connectivity requirements were initially
adopted so all the subdivisions that
have been approved since then have taken
our connectivity into account have made
required stubs to the property lines
with the i won't go through this in
detail unless we need to reference it
but basically with the changes that
we're proposing with the tiered approach
with with different neighborhoods we're
depending on the tier that you're in
establishes what let what level of
connectivity required to make the with
the with setting up these tears then
applicants could offer zoning conditions
depending on the tier of the adjacent
neighborhood as long and those
conditions could include providing a
full road connection not providing a
full road connection or providing an
emergency connection only and the the
condition zoning conditions that could
be accepted depend on the tier of the
in the specific conditions again
ensuring that no conditions are offered
that that are less restrictive than what
the underlying zoning allows and what's
applicable to that particular tier the
second item item C is related two
dimensional standards for low density
residential development this amendment
was prepared in response to concerns
that some new development in areas that
are designated in the land use plan for
low density development or very low
density development often failed to meet
expectations of citizens and council
members and board members related to lot
size and other dimensional requirements
this issue was also discussed at the to
council work sessions in the two prior
public hearings so this has had a
lengthy vetting and revision process
along the way as well based on feedback
in Council Direction received the
amendment is currently proposed with
prohibit new TR which is transitional
residential and TR conditional use
districts where the plan designation
calls for low or very low density
residential development and would also
specify which designations plan
designations would be required in order
to request rezoning to certain
residential districts so it tries in the
ordinance to establish a closer
relationship between the land use plan
and some of the key zoning districts and
when you would be eligible to even make
a request for those this table shows
that relationship for example you can
see the in the RR 12 district could be
requested in a V LDR very low
density residential the low density or
the medium density residential category
r8 could also be requested in those same
districts and also in the HDR or the
high density area so in this example in
a area where the plan calls for
high-density residential we would be
looking for you know the r12 would not
be allowed because the density there
would be not not great enough to meet
the requirement for the high density if
you look to the column for the TR the
transitional residential district here
you'll see that the the TR district
which has the smallest lot sizes the
smallest dimensional requirements
setbacks and allows the highest
densities would not be a district that
you could request if you if your plan
designation called for the lower very
low density development so it's just a
way to try to to have that better
relationship to keep the the densities
from the zoning and the densities or the
lot size is related with the land use
plan on a little closer relationship and
that concludes staffs comments it will
be glad to answer any questions thank
you let's take the first one
connectivity
so if I understand this correctly a
neighborhood approved before 1999 could
be at tier 1 if a public safety issue is
identified as that or is our
neighborhoods that were built before
1999 or in the were built outside of
carry are they always they never appear
one there it looked like there were some
conditions here that you had to meet
certain criteria and one of them was
that there was no public safety issues
that would be raised and the question
and my question is who gets to decide
that and could you know say an older
neighborhood turn into a Tier one
because somebody says there's going to
be a public safety issue well a Tier one
neighborhood is basically what a
neighborhood that's that doesn't fall
into either a tier 2 or tier 3 and in
order to be a tier 2 tier 3 it would
have had to have been approved prior to
nineteen ninety nine before the
connectivity ordinance so all of the
newer neighborhoods I mean any
neighborhood that was approved after
that january fourteenth date would
automatically be classified as a Tier
one because it doesn't fall into a tier
two or tier three once you're in the
tier two or three category if you're in
either tier two or tier three then
you're always required to provide
pedestrian bicycle and utility
connections and then whether or not you
provide whether or not you have to
provide a road connection depends on if
their safety issues if there are no if
it's not if it's determined and this
would be with input from the fire
department and Police Department and
some judgment in looking at the overall
interaction of the proposed
existing developments if it was
determined that a a road connection of
some sort was really needed in order to
assure that fire safety and other you
know safety aspects were adequately
covered then a road connection that
would be for emergency access only would
be required so that and there's several
different options for how that can be
done it wouldn't be the type of
connection that would have the traffic
from the neighborhood flowing through it
and mr. Jensen can talk talk more about
some of the different options but it
would basically be a connection or some
provision so that if there were an
emergency of fire emergency or something
of that nature it would be an area that
a fire truck could go across you know so
that we could get into the neighborhood
for safety but not regular everyday
traffic as part of the traffic pattern
if it was determined in one of the tier
2 or tier 3 you know if it was a tier 2
tier 3 neighborhood that there really
wasn't an issue of that nature then
there wouldn't be a road requirement at
all and that's a that's a call that
would that would be made at the time and
looking looking at the site plan or the
at the rezoning stage to see what tier
did that neighborhood fall into ok
because the way it's written is just a
little bit confusing I guess that's just
a technicality because it basically says
you know if a potential public safety
issue has been identified you are never
a tear to recruit you're always a tier 1
because you have to meet all these
criteria so it's just something for you
to look at well the criteria for all
cases for a tier for a tier the tier 1
is if you don't qualify as it here too
and in all cases the tier or a tier 2 or
3 the the primary criteria between that
gets you into either a two or a three is
the
date of the development plan approval
the january fourteenth day and the fact
that there's not an existing street stub
that goes to the property line so that's
a key piece of it so those both of those
criteria would have would have to be met
in order to be either tier to be tier 2
or tier 3 and then once you get to that
point then the third the third question
basically is whether or not there's the
public safety concern okay so the public
safety was the other question I had you
know and I knew it would be firing
police access but you know we've seen
some cases where we had an existing
older neighborhood that was well
established there's a light where people
can get in and out they face a busy
street and then there's something
developed right next to it and those
people aren't going to get a traffic
light to get in and out because it would
be too close yet the older neighborhood
is saying no you can't connect to us
which kind of creates a safety issue for
the new neighborhood you know they have
trouble getting in and out on this busy
street whereas if they're a you know
simple connection could take them
through the older neighborhood and out
through a light but it sounds to me like
that would never be a consideration it
has to be fire safe firearm I would ask
if mr. Jensen has anything to add to
that decision making process I think
what we need to do is focus on the older
neighborhood as a way this ordinance is
written it seems to provide them
protections so again those protections
would be not allowing vehicular traffic
dick to penetrate into their older
neighborhood only in those cases where
some sort of emergency access is needed
so in that particular case it would be
you know could be hard for the new
neighborhood because they don't enjoy
the printing of the the provisions for
us for a light to go out to so
unfortunately that's the way our
ordinance is written but the as far as
who you know the departments that that
were responsible for determining
tyr neighborhood it is it resides
currently in the transportation
facilities Department is the way the way
the text is written so although the
transportation and traffic engineering
staff will do an evaluation but we will
have consultation with all the other
departments you know within the town of
cary including the fire police
department if that helps you out in okay
I got the question just an idea popped
into my mind which is a dangerous thing
railroad crossings we seem to have had a
case recently where okay their railroad
was thought to be connected but didn't
and I think in the future there might be
more a goal is to close more my correct
in saying that to make it safer for them
so do we worry about that of all the
things I think it in cary we're we want
to close any rail crossings because
obviously we've got to move traffic
around this this major corridors that
penetrate different parts of town so we
look for ways to navigate through them
either through an at-grade crossings
aura or grade-separated crossing but
there has been a movement across North
Carolina in general to close certain
railroad crossings that a doesn't
doesn't have any really traffic benefit
circulation benefit and and and really
to kind of eliminate those those hazards
along along the corridors I know what is
that doing to I wonder to this tier and
effective is it really hasn't no bearing
in it because that's okay again this is
just this is just how do we interact
with neighborhoods again if there's a
major obstacle you know like like a
railroad than how we how do we get
around that obstacle is is just a
different different manner
anything else have a quick question just
with your acid and I care Memphis was
touched on during our workgroup but how
does this ordinance compare it to
neighboring other communities in the
area is this kind of in par with what
they're doing or I think yeah I'm not
familiar with although our neighboring
because this is changing i have i have
been had conversations with several
jurisdictions they're they're grasping
with the same issue of how to how to
look at connectivity in a different way
particularly maybe during the rezoning
level and each of them has maybe a
different variety or how it looks and
feels but i think this this concept of
tiered approach we've looked at several
different options through a couple
different work sessions with the council
and this is the this is the the approach
that they felt most comfortable within
it that it at least resolved a lot of
their issues as best they could does it
isn't the best of every world everything
that we'd like to have but it it comes
close to what i believe they had support
for okay any other questions your one
more did we take into consideration the
the street with because different
neighborhoods have different you know
some neighborhoods you can park and have
two cars passed through what does that
enter into this at all it generally no
because generally all our streets are
designed safely for a safe width it gets
when you talking about these older
neighborhoods that were built at
counties division standards even though
they're still safe with because they are
they are prescribed by the north
carolina do t so they're all safe wits
the question is they just don't have
more municipal type settings where we
have streetlights and sidewalks urban
gutters and things like that so this
ordinance really addresses those very
older neighborhoods where where we don't
have similar types of Street types
municipal type Street types with that
and this ordinance goes goes a ways into
helping resolve those issues so that if
the neighborhood was built to a
maybe a sander 20 30 years ago there's
provisions in this tiered approach that
would necessarily require vehicular
traffic now they may require emergency
access type of provision or you know
sidewalk and pedestrian type connections
but it wouldn't necessarily require that
vehicular movement interaction okay
because one of the things we're noticing
is the parking on the side of the road
really limits how much traffic you can
put on that road to right so right it
generally the subdivision standards by
North Carolina deity they were designed
for for subdivision roads of you know
daily traffic volumes of you know 300 to
500 cars a day so that that helps you
out though yes mr. Johnson how many
people attended public hearings for
these two issues I assume you were
participant yeah I don't I didn't don't
remember there was a lot of interaction
from the public that was given to
opportunities for for feedback at public
hearings we also the planning department
sent out a kind of a listing to their
normal developer groups prior to the
public hearing that went in March
advising them that we were planning to
to come forward they're invited that if
they had any commentary before that
meaning they certainly could meet with
staff to talk about particularly
connectivity so there has been some
opportunities for public feedback but I
don't remember there being a lot of
feedback in fact we didn't really hear a
lot of feedback out of the Wake County
home builders association even though
they were following and I know they did
attend some of those work sessions that
were held with counsel what about the
developer feedback I haven't received I
haven't received any specific on it
any other questions all right I'll just
ask one about implementation so someone
is going to include a connectivity issue
in their zoning condition they first get
a ruling so to speak from staff as to
what tier that area would be in yes
there would need to be a determination
could be made at the time of the
rezoning for what the Pyramid of the
tier of the adjacent neighborhood and
then that would establish you know the
range of zoning conditions it could at
least be considered based on that tier
so that would remain the town's call it
would not be someone could apply and say
I'm applying to be tier 2 here based on
XYZ correct no you don't you wouldn't
apply to be a tier I mean if the the
applicant for the subdivision that was
proposed would be adjacent to a
neighborhood I mean presumably in order
for the issue to come up there would be
you know some question of the
connectivity requirements and then we
would be looking at the whatever the
adjacent neighborhood is to determine
what the tier of that neighborhood is
based on those criteria and then once
the tier was determined there are you
know several you know several options
that you can see you know kind of in
this table with with what could or could
not be allowed as a zoning condition
based on based on the tier because again
whatever is allowed with the tier you've
got to you could only have a zoning
condition that made it more restrictive
the reason I ask Aly to use some the one
condition about a right-of-way may exist
to the common property line but a street
may not may not be there is that sort of
a fluid thing or is there a bright line
where you're either your road is up to
the common property line or it's not
because I know some stub areas have
maybe a patch of gravel with some weeds
grown in it and do they say that that
I mean I think in some cases there it
mean when the initial subdivision was
done it may not have been feasible to go
exactly up to the property line but yet
the intent if the intent was clearly
there for you know for that to open and
it's physically feasible to do that I
mean sometimes debate based on you may
need construction easement sir or things
of that nature that that aren't in place
initially that boat I think if the
particularly where the subdivision was
created after 1999 if there's a
right-of-way stubbing to the property
line even if the road is a little bit
short if it you know didn't go exactly
to the line then it's just a matter of
construction issues to to make that that
final connection where you can grade
everything where the roads come together
nicely thank you I am one more question
just popped to mind we received a note
or two about you know the connectivity
with regard to like a shopping center
next to a neighborhood this is only
neighborhood to neighborhood right is
that the only thing this addresses well
this is this addresses the property
being Ruiz owned in relation to the
adjacent neighborhood the use is not
taken into account in this case if okay
the that could in with this this is the
land area being resigned in relation to
connecting to the streets in the
adjacent subdivision so do we if we put
in a shopping center I think this
particular concern was that a shopping
center is going in there's an existing
neighborhood and there's going to be
kind of a connection force between the
shopping center and the neighborhood and
that is the way our connectivity
ordinance currently works it's not based
on the it's not based on the adjacent
uses it's the presumption that you want
the uses the adjacent uses to
connect and the as is the case now the
option to go forward after the rezoning
to go forward you know where the
applicant could go to before town
council to see if there are other
circumstances that town council would
want to waive those requirements through
a different process but it wouldn't come
into play at the rezoning process yeah
so I can I can understand their concern
I mean if I could and I it seems like
this would be the place to address that
simply and allowing you know that if the
property being rezone diz for commercial
or office you something other than
residential then i would think that
those conditions should be able to be
handled during the rezoning because that
is probably worse than any of these
other situations that we've talked about
so that i would see is just kind of a
something that i would that that
probably should have been added to this
okay well maybe i can offer a little bit
a little bit and i'm glad you brought
that up tonight um we kind of been
scouring the code about ticket
reasonings under zoning districts let
that have better zone MXD that allow a
preliminary development plan to be a
part of that rezoning case so you're
actually seeing everything how the
layouts going to be on that plan and
they basically have got to build to that
that plan there isn't specific language
in there that that says you can't look
at connectivity I think probably in that
section of the code where talks about
preliminary develop plans we could
probably strengthen if that's the
recommendation of this board maybe look
at some opportunities to put some things
in that part of the code that would
allow connectivity to be to be evaluated
or considered during a preliminary
development plan I will tell you that
one of the options that counsel was
given at their last work session it was
an option where we would you could do a
concept plan
in which which we currently have
available in the in the code right now
is if you want to do a constant plan
with a rezoning you can do a circulation
plan and at that time we said that there
may be an opportunity that we could
write when we possibly could write in
some provisions there were maybe
connectivity could be evaluated in that
context they didn't have any much
support for that concept plan provision
and how connectivity plays into that but
the MX d district and with a polymer
eight of all plan is a little bit
different it actually shows quite
specific about how you going to develop
that property so I think there if that's
something the board would like staff to
go back before it goes to counsel to
maybe maybe look into that a little bit
more we certainly could do that I think
that would be a good idea because as I
was reading this whole thing i was
thinking neighborhood in neighborhood
and you know i don't i'm not up on the
connectivity requirements for em XD or
plain commercial or office or anything
else but it seems to me like that should
be a factor in this because it's
definitely something that should be it
would give people such peace of mind if
we could address it at rezoning right
and it could very well be that that a
neighborhood adjacent to a commercial
area could be quite compatible having a
secondary access into a shopping area so
it's convenient so that people don't
have to get out on a thoroughfare just
to do that but i think there's there
there are ways to achieve connectivity
and and and still you know and still
keep it a balance such that we're not
having shopping center traffic going
through a neighborhood as its primary
entrance you know there's a lot of
creative ways from a land land planning
perspective traffic calming perspective
that they could integrate into their
shopping center plan to make that happen
so it just depends on how how creative
you want to be that to discourage cut
through traffic that shouldn't be going
from the shopping center through a
neighborhood so i think that's really
kind of up to the development community
to kind of kind of work on it but it's
certainly there is there is opportunity
maybe during a rezoning is about
you waiting material particularly during
a polarity develop plan to look at it
that way um I think the key word in
there was cut through I like the idea
that some people might want to be able
to get there and even if it's like what
school is that what kind of zona does
the school go into I'm sorry what kind
of Zoning what a school go into what a
school go into going to a number of
different zone yes okay because some
people would want a connectivity or a
walking path so I don't know if when
you're doing all those things if you
would keep that in mind too yeah I'm
just saying it should be addressed here
I think the key word was cut from you we
don't we see i agree with you i thought
it was residential or residential we
don't somebody have cut the guy so you
brought that thank you for bringing that
out room and I could we can take a look
at the ordinate stoop with the specific
question related to the M XD district
and see you know see how far our current
ordinance goes there may be some
flexibility that flexibility that we
have within that particular district
because since we do have the preliminary
development plan so we can take a look
at that and see if there's any
additional applicability that comes into
play there frequently we run into the
issue of top ography or stream buffers
when we're looking at a rezoning where
would that come into play that comes
into play in the end that that's the air
one area where the planning director can
have some discretion in looking at the
specific topography and potentially wave
a connection for that reason if it's not
feasible due to a typographic
differences in streams and stream
crossings and floodplain areas can
certainly play into that so it's that
one quick question mayor one point
clarifications on that last point
I know it's none of the current
requirements from connectivity so that
would still remain that the planning
director would still I mean I always
think about as we were looking at these
ldos as I true word it's difficult to
cover a hundred percent so you have
these you know those one and two percent
and just kind of that process so in
those cases where there's topography or
some other physical constraint whether
it be a wetland or something else that's
in some of the natural item that's
developed there that that could get
resolved that can be resolved earlier we
have had cases before I believe where
we've asked the planning director to
make a determination on the on a
connection issue rather than waiting
until the site plan to make that earlier
you know based on based on information
that's available related to wear those
connections would be I guess my other
because comment would be and support
some of the other comments other folks
on the board have as we look at
connectivity particularly as we look at
existing residential dynasty or other
potentially mixed-use development
commercial development to be what the
staff can do in terms of is you're
looking at language to identify you know
either compatible or incompatible
connectivity and exactly what I'm
looking for but you know even if it's
the broad sense what could or couldn't
work earlier on the process of you know
in terms of whether it be rezoning etc
but anything that does you know I think
just to so we don't go so far down the
road so to say and for all the issues
that on for everybody on all sides of
the issue you know just to try to
resolve those things then identify what
would work what wouldn't and that was
one thing that we're trying to do with
with this ordinance to preserve you know
the one hand preserve and to some extent
the connectivity provision so that we
don't and in the long run end up with
all of our developments being ending in
cul-de-sacs and
you don't have through connections
because that that creates problems as
well so this is an attempt to to balance
to balance that out a little bit more so
we can to do the extent that we can you
know find that balance and be able to
know earlier in the process for those
those cases where we can have some
specific criteria and see where how that
could be addressed to be able to tell
folks earlier in the process how that
could work as with any you know
amendment then you think you've had on
this to that it's not going to resolve
every scenario when at least with this
this this first attempt to have you know
something more solidified in the
ordinance with this to try to narrow
that down to go as far as we can with it
and then over time you know these things
you know often amendments continue to
evolve somewhat over time in addressing
more and more types of situations that
come forward but this is this is an
effort to expand our capability to
provide the flexibility and it doesn't
get to everything that everyone would
like to see but we feel like it's a good
balance that can give us some traction
to move in with them Thank You mr.
chairman Kuk we fight on this separately
from the other I think that would
probably be a wise thing 30 days or so
out of the way and you know yeah if
there's are there any other questions I
just have one last one if there aren't
any more and that's about the the
establishment of a condition someone
puts a zoning condition forward
especially for like the emergency
vehicle access or something that's just
the condition there doesn't have to be a
detailed breakdown at that point of how
that is going to be achieved just like
in our regular process correct you they
wouldn't have to lay that all out before
they they come in with I think it's
because zoning conditions are voluntary
so people could be as detailed and
specific with that as they chose to be
in some cases
it may be soon in a two tier 2 is just
taking an example you could have a
zoning condition that said that you
would not provide a full public road
connection because in tier 2 that's a
possibility would not be possible into
your one to do that but in tier in tier
2 or 3 you could you could offer that as
a condition and then likewise if you
were in tier in tier 3 you could provide
emergency vehicle access as a zoning
condition if you wanted to it wouldn't
be required in that tier but if if the
adjacent neighborhood for example and
wanted to have some sort of connection
or for some for some reason that seemed
desirable but it wasn't required you
could voluntarily offer to do that
anyway so there's a lot of different
permutations of how zoning conditions
could be offered with the key being at
any for any particular scenario you just
would have to make sure that it's
something that's more restrictive than
what your tier would otherwise allowed
and then within that the it's up to the
applicant to propose a condition because
their voluntary and then staff always
refuse those to make sure that it's
something reasonable is related to the
impacts of the development so it's a
condition that we can legally accept or
consider thank you we have any other
questions for the moment yes
and this this question might not be
actual or not but is there any way to
standardize connectivity is there
anything similar to like you know we
have traffic issues so we look at a TI a
and there's some guidance through
guidelines that go with that is there
anything for connectivity out there that
was referenced we used to propose to
connectivity changes I think with what
we're with what we're proposing it's
looking uniquely at the types of
circumstances that we have here what the
concerns were that were generated by
neighborhood residents concerns
expressed by counsel to try to find a
way to a creative way to address those
concerns any other questions so we have
a little discussion here about possibly
going back and getting some refinements
in this well my plan was to just vote
against it so it would be on the agenda
because unless you think we can send it
back I don't think that would be a real
popular movement oh all these things are
goodness all of this is good it just
seems to be missing one thing that
protects and and I know the intent was
to protect older neighborhoods but I
think this is an opportunity to build in
something that protects the tier 1
neighborhoods from things you know so
that these connectivity issues can be
looked at at rezoning if the adjacent
use is not residential and I think that
would be a good thing to build into here
so we can either I don't know what our
options are other than to vote on it and
and assuming that it's a able to go
fight if I can just offer a comment if
there if there are you know any
significant changes would have to be
reconsidered through the public hearing
process and start over if there are
concerns one option that you could have
would be too
vote on what's before you either up or
down to two how you see that and then
send ford also any comments if there's
areas that you you know feel like it's
deficient or could go farther you could
state that and bring that forward as
information for council to consider as
as part of your deliberation and making
your recommendation he could come
forward and another round it's just kind
of been my experience that if we
unanimously vote yes we never hear about
this issue again it gets lost I mean
everybody's busy and relays a lot to do
it just gets lost if it's not discussed
at council so my inclination is not to
just take it back so I agree with you
there that we should you should make a
decision on this and and if someone were
to vote against it and you know
articulate those reasons then naturally
that would go before council then that
may be the best airing we could get
that's what I'm thinking on and it could
be another round I mean my my thought
would be that they would discuss it
they'd have stay with our staff to look
at it and it might be in round 47 or
whatever comes in an accident and then
that could possibly keep us from having
haven't yet another public hearing on a
significant change yeah I like to say in
order to keep the ball rolling for the
good parts and then have the other night
exactly so i will take the hit and
voting against it which means i can't we
don't have anything to vote on yet so
we'll have to and by the way thank you
all for making what i thought was going
to be a really easy night but very
complicated issue if someone would would
have a motion in mind then we could get
that out there we could Beit it a little
bit and and take it from there only on
item D for connectivity at this point so
did you like me to do that
I motion that the board forward ldo
amendment round 31 item a4 pl15 visit
I'm not really sure how to word this ok
we're going good okay to the town
council with a recommendation for
approval that is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and all other plans
and is reasonable and in the public
interest for the reasons set forth in
the staff report or presentation have a
motion to approve there a second I'll
second now discussion I like the idea
that we are trying to tear it and take
in different considerations and
conditions and that we're not going to
hit a hundred percent of everything but
I also like the fact that this is still
open for further discussion as we
discussed in our game plan anything to
add I don't have anything about that no
would you like to yes make a statement
okay so you know I pretty much already
said this but for the record I'm going
to vote against this I think this is
good I like it I like everything in it
but I feel like it should be expanded
with one more provision which protects
tier 1 2 and 3 tier 2 and 3 are already
basically protected but also for textear
one from adjacent developed non
residential development either MXD or
commercial or office or whatever it is
if it's not a traditional neighborhood
and then they need some protection in
the form of being able to look at zoning
conditions versus waiting for site plan
any further discussion yes i'm also
going to income on board with Carla here
and opposing this I think on paper is
really good to be honest I kind of came
in here I wanted to support this but in
some of the discussion specifically with
you residential and the other uses you
know I think that something that really
should be taken into account here I
think this
is really a better step I definitely
think we're going in the right direction
but I just think that's something that
that council definitely is keep in mind
and maybe we can come back with with
another round and address that specific
issue along with everything else which
again I think is pretty solid thank you
any other comments before we meeting in
the same direction i'm afraid that makes
three you like to explain it further
well i wasn't in on the work session so
in some ways there are some small things
about this that i'd like to have cast
but i really didn't think about until i
started reading the whole thing over
again but i do believe that we've had at
least one case where there was a
neighborhood going in adjacent to a
commercial development and there was a
big issue with connectivity on that one
and so I do think this is something
that's worthwhile to be laid out should
be laid out probably should not have
been forgotten but I don't know why it
wasn't so I'm in Carlos camp on anyone
else hopefully this is not out of order
but I have a question on this if this
would be voted down being an Lda
amendment what is the next step for this
does it come right back to us with it
would it would still move forward to
counsel for a decision and then as in
the boat council takes your vote into
consideration and then they will make
their decision which could be to make
changes or send it back or vote on it
with some changes but that would be up
to counsel thank you does anyone else
have any other comments for discussion
if not then we'll have to do a show of
hands here because I think we're going
to have a a very close vote all those in
favor of adopting this L do as the
motion stated please raise your hand and
say hi all those opposed raise your hand
and say no if you please we have a 4-3
vote in favor really weak
now we're taking up the second item does
anyone have any questions for miss
Biermann on item to low density
residential standards can you go back to
that nifty gifty chart also with the r12
they are 8 and that one thank you why
are we including are 8 and very low
density I'm just curious when we as part
of the history of this when we as this
has gone through the various council
work sessions and getting feedback on
council with what through the work
session process when we first the first
public hearing that we had the first
draft that we had we had included some
the approach was a little bit different
and we actually put into the dimensional
standards that applied within different
districts for single-family development
that if you're in an ldr area you had a
minimum even if it was TR you had a
minimum lot size that matched up with
what was our 12 and that was basically
consistent with the VL our areas to when
we took that to the initial public
hearing the response or feedback we got
from town council as they felt that was
too restrictive so it went back to
another work session so in these the in
both the VL dr and the LDR areas or any
districts we're still would be looking
at the density limit switch in bldr is
less than one unit per acre so it just
provides
a range so you're going to have fewer
units in that area because the density
is lower but it maintains the
flexibility and looking at different
product types to have that that smaller
lot size what the main thing that this
amendment would do and this is something
that we've seen seemed happen a number
of times is where the minimum lot size
maybe 8,000 square feet or 12,000 square
feet often 8,000 square feet but we've
had a number of requests for the TR
district and then zoning conditions that
would limit the lot size to 8,000
instead of the 5,000 that would
otherwise be required but then it's
looking at perhaps lot width or setbacks
and trying to pull in some smaller lot
wits and smaller setbacks so this would
prevent the less restrictive dimensional
standards associated with the TR
district from being a from kind of being
mixed and matched in where you have the
8,000 square foot lot sand and by having
that better relationship between all of
your lot dimensions even in an area
that's low density it's more predictable
and you know you're always going to have
your density limits and and then at
least you'll know that your lot sizes
and your dimensions and your setbacks
are all going to be in scale any other
questions Mary if you would I'm not sure
everybody on the board is aware of the
VLC are versus the veal dr areas even
and i live in one of those areas and i
was a little bit confused right yes ok
so the was it feels here the veal for
example the
and we saw on ridgeback road recently
came in with an r 12 conditional-use and
they are in the VLC arf and when I read
this I was thinking all the ldr was that
and then you could put this conditional
overlay so there is in the southwest
area plan there is portion in the war
western portion of the southwest area
plan that has an overlay that called the
conservation residential overlay
district the plan designation under
underneath that where that overlay
district would be applied when as
properties come in to be developed the
underlying plan designation is either
VLC typically be LCR or or LCR and the
difference between the L and to see in
those names has indicates that it's in
the conservation residential area so to
seize for conservation law yeah so it's
so and that is not reflected in this in
this table we're not making any
statements or the clarification related
to the VLC are because it's subject to
its own set of standards where you can
you can develop in the in those areas
under the are 40 zoning and if you save
additional open space you get a density
bonus and there's limitations on
depending on how much open space you
have with what your density and your lot
sizes can be so there's already a table
that ordinance section it deals
specifically with that conservation
residential overlay area and then it has
its own plan designations that
correspond with it and the reason I
bring that a couple of things first of
all in the VLC are the minimum
sighs no matter what you do is 15,000
square feet but the second thing is that
if you opt to go down to that 15,000
square feet there are additional
protections I guess for the rest of the
neighborhood and that your streetscape
has to go up to 80 feet right doesn't it
have to go back from 50 to 80 I don't
recall that there are additional buffs
of protections so you know I would have
almost preferred to have seen VLC are
laid on top of all the VL dr areas
because you know when i read this you
know number two on the background the
reason we're doing this is to set lot
size expectations based on the land use
plan for neighbors and if we're saying
you can build 8,000 square foot lots and
I bldr I don't think we've met that goal
now it may make a lot of sense because
you're you know if you cluster
everything in one little spot you reduce
the impact of the infrastructure etc but
you know what if they choose to do that
right up against the road where
everything else you know is trees and
woods and whatever people expected in
bldr so once again I find that I wish we
had just a little bit more protection
here when you went down to past art you
know to r12 r8 there would be additional
buffering requirements
I mean to me r8 just seems kind of
ludicrous but when I think about it from
an environmental point it makes sense
any other questions or comments you had
a look I get a question I don't quick is
how much of the south is basically with
the most air we have left is down in the
southwest area so I'm glad you mentioned
that conservation overly how much
percentage of that Newt that southwest
area is in the top conservation overlay
I know it's a really tough mission I'm
sorry because I'm just that's that's
where I'm worried about right now so I
don't want I'm there with you worried
about the balance of lot size versus
environmental versus density so I'm glad
to hear that I forgot all about that
part yeah it just depends on what the
objective here is so I could almost go
for this if we treated any of these
small lot size as some type of
clustering option and had additional
buffers so that it wasn't obvious that
you were putting something that just
totally didn't fit in the middle of you
know the VL dr and keep it on i can just
add in the VL dr the density that goes
along with that if someone were to
resent is less than one unit per acre so
by there's going to be a significant to
have if you were to have lots of small
as 8,000 square feet there would be some
significant open space within the area
because the because the density is low
normally in our 40 disk in art 40
district for example of where the
minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet
you could get a yield of one unit per
acre you it could have potential roughly
the same number of lines so there would
be a good bit of area that would be in
the open space and then in looking at
that I think we would be you know
seeking to try to you know maximize
the use of that open space in an
appropriate manner if memory serves
there was just a recent case where that
very issue was was very uh big in the in
the decision process of the overall why
we're all over by 10 10 somewhere yep do
I have any other questions that you
would like to ask him a Spearman if not
would someone care to make a motion one
way or the other anyone anyone at all
thank you make a motion and we'll move
that the board forward ldo amendment
amendment round 31 item c2 town council
with a recommendation for approval as it
is consistent with the comprehensive
plan and all other applicable plans and
is reasonable and in the public interest
for the reasons set forth in the staff
report and presentation there is a
motion is there a second that's second
discussion please I'm total support for
this I honestly don't think that there's
any reason why we would ever have a TR
in an LDR bldr I just don't think it
makes sense I just picture cases where
you have in our for deer in our 20 and
you come in with this really close 5,000
square foot lots and that to me makes
absolutely no sense from a planning
perspective so I'm in total support for
this I agree i think town counts our
town staff did a good job of recognizing
considerations and making the
appropriate judgment sir so i'm in favor
any other discussion well I'm going to
vote against the motion this is my knife
to just say that I I think that we
should not be looking at lot size or lot
sizes less than 15,000 square feet in
the VL dr without additional buffer
protections and you know we didn't
really focus on ldr but you know I think
that we should you know build in
appropriate buffers to accommodate these
I think are eats already allowed in it's
already already allowed an ldr I guess
anything is that's anyway right right ok
I mean that's well for sure in the VL dr
i believe we need additional buffer
protections I don't think r8 belongs
there at all but if it does we really
need to be fed the buffers around it and
there are 12 is basically the same since
that was my original question I have to
agree and I know mathematically it
figures out that there will be other
leftover spaces but just extra
expectations or verbiage and that would
help all right you forgot was lot size
expectations we didn't hit the mark any
other discussion if not that I will call
a vote on this all those in favor of the
motion to approve this ldo amendment
please say aye hi anyone opposed please
say no no oh I have three knows so we're
523 on that for three for three for two
years with a lie never saw four two
three one two of them we come out there
that concludes this business the next
item on our agendas are new and old
business I don't know if any no one else
does and defense the case i motion to
adjourn we have a motion to adjourn
let's see this one before 23 all those
opposed thank you
this has been a production of Harry TV
visit the town of rough selective time
you